ARTICLE
2 June 2025

CD Paris, May 28, 2025, Decision In Revocation Action, UPC_CFI_198/2024

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Revocation of European patents can be limited to specific UPC Member States upon request (Art. 34, 76(1) UPCA; Rule 44(d) RoP)...
France Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Revocation of European patents can be limited to specific UPC Member States upon request (Art. 34, 76(1) UPCA; Rule 44(d) RoP)

The Court confirmed it may revoke a European (bundle) patent only for the national part(s) specified by the claimant, not necessarily for all UPC Member States.

This approach respects the adversarial nature of proceedings and the principle of ne ultra petita in civil proceedings not to award to the parties more than requested.

"Added matter" doctrine strictly applied: claims must not generalize beyond the parent application (Art. 138(1)(c) EPC; Art. 76(1), 123(2) EPC)

The patent was revoked because the granted claims allowed for upshifting to the "highest quality" stream, which was not directly and unambiguously disclosed in the parent application. The parent application at most discloses that an upshift to a higher quality, or the next higher quality stream may be considered.
The Court emphasized that only what is clearly and unambiguously disclosed can be claimed.

Auxiliary requests must effectively address grounds of invalidity and be timely (Rules of Procedure)

Defendant's auxiliary requests failed to overcome the added matter objection, as they did not sufficiently amend the problematic claim language.
Late-filed auxiliary requests were not admitted (ORD_69035/2024).

Stay of proceedings for parallel EPO opposition is exceptional and must be justified (Art. 33(10) UPCA; Rule 295(a) RoP)

The Court refused to stay the proceedings, citing the advanced stage of the case and the need for expeditious and predictable decisions.
The interests of the parties and procedural efficiency were balanced, with reference to proportionality and fairness.

2. Division

Central Division Paris

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_198/2024 (ACT_23310/2024)

4. Type of proceedings

Revocation action

5. Parties

Claimant: Aylo Premium Ltd.
Defendant: DISH Technologies L.L.C.

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 822 805 B1

7. Jurisdictions

UPC (limited to the German part of the European patent)

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 44(d) RoP
Rule 295(a) RoP
Rule 118.5 RoP
Art. 34 UPCA
Art. 76(1) UPCA
Art. 33(10) UPCA
Art. 69(1) UPCA
Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
Art. 76(1), 123(2) EPC
Art. 5(2) Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012
Art. 73(1) UPCA (appeal)
Art. 82 UPCA (enforcement)
Rules 118.8, 158.2, 354, 355.4 RoP

self

UPC_CFI_198_2024_CD_Paris Download

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More